-
Uncovering In-DRAM RowHammer Protection Mechanisms: A New Methodology, Custom RowHammer Patterns, and Implications
Authors:
Hasan Hassan,
Yahya Can Tugrul,
Jeremie S. Kim,
Victor van der Veen,
Kaveh Razavi,
Onur Mutlu
Abstract:
The RowHammer vulnerability in DRAM is a critical threat to system security. To protect against RowHammer, vendors commit to security-through-obscurity: modern DRAM chips rely on undocumented, proprietary, on-die mitigations, commonly known as Target Row Refresh (TRR). At a high level, TRR detects and refreshes potential RowHammer-victim rows, but its exact implementations are not openly disclosed…
▽ More
The RowHammer vulnerability in DRAM is a critical threat to system security. To protect against RowHammer, vendors commit to security-through-obscurity: modern DRAM chips rely on undocumented, proprietary, on-die mitigations, commonly known as Target Row Refresh (TRR). At a high level, TRR detects and refreshes potential RowHammer-victim rows, but its exact implementations are not openly disclosed. Security guarantees of TRR mechanisms cannot be easily studied due to their proprietary nature.
To assess the security guarantees of recent DRAM chips, we present Uncovering TRR (U-TRR), an experimental methodology to analyze in-DRAM TRR implementations. U-TRR is based on the new observation that data retention failures in DRAM enable a side channel that leaks information on how TRR refreshes potential victim rows. U-TRR allows us to (i) understand how logical DRAM rows are laid out physically in silicon; (ii) study undocumented on-die TRR mechanisms; and (iii) combine (i) and (ii) to evaluate the RowHammer security guarantees of modern DRAM chips. We show how U-TRR allows us to craft RowHammer access patterns that successfully circumvent the TRR mechanisms employed in 45 DRAM modules of the three major DRAM vendors. We find that the DRAM modules we analyze are vulnerable to RowHammer, having bit flips in up to 99.9% of all DRAM rows. We make U-TRR source code openly and freely available at [106].
△ Less
Submitted 22 October, 2022; v1 submitted 20 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
-
VPS: Excavating High-Level C++ Constructs from Low-Level Binaries to Protect Dynamic Dispatching
Authors:
Andre Pawlowski,
Victor van der Veen,
Dennis Andriesse,
Erik van der Kouwe,
Thorsten Holz,
Cristiano Giuffrida,
Herbert Bos
Abstract:
Polymorphism and inheritance make C++ suitable for writing complex software, but significantly increase the attack surface because the implementation relies on virtual function tables (vtables). These vtables contain function pointers that attackers can potentially hijack and in practice, vtable hijacking is one of the most important attack vector for C++ binaries.
In this paper, we present VTab…
▽ More
Polymorphism and inheritance make C++ suitable for writing complex software, but significantly increase the attack surface because the implementation relies on virtual function tables (vtables). These vtables contain function pointers that attackers can potentially hijack and in practice, vtable hijacking is one of the most important attack vector for C++ binaries.
In this paper, we present VTable Pointer Separation (VPS), a practical binary-level defense against vtable hijacking in C++ applications. Unlike previous binary-level defenses, which rely on unsound static analyses to match classes to virtual callsites, VPS achieves a more accurate protection by restricting virtual callsites to validly created objects. More specifically, VPS ensures that virtual callsites can only use objects created at valid object construction sites, and only if those objects can reach the callsite. Moreover, VPS explicitly prevents false positives (falsely identified virtual callsites) from breaking the binary, an issue existing work does not handle correctly or at all. We evaluate the prototype implementation of VPS on a diverse set of complex, real-world applications (MongoDB, MySQL server, Node.js, SPEC CPU2017/CPU2006), showing that our approach protects on average 97.8% of all virtual callsites in SPEC CPU2006 and 97.4% in SPEC CPU2017 (all C++ benchmarks), with a moderate performance overhead of 11% and 9% geomean, respectively. Furthermore, our evaluation reveals 86 false negatives in VTV, a popular source-based defense which is part of GCC.
△ Less
Submitted 7 July, 2020;
originally announced July 2020.
-
TRRespass: Exploiting the Many Sides of Target Row Refresh
Authors:
Pietro Frigo,
Emanuele Vannacci,
Hasan Hassan,
Victor van der Veen,
Onur Mutlu,
Cristiano Giuffrida,
Herbert Bos,
Kaveh Razavi
Abstract:
After a plethora of high-profile RowHammer attacks, CPU and DRAM vendors scrambled to deliver what was meant to be the definitive hardware solution against the RowHammer problem: Target Row Refresh (TRR). A common belief among practitioners is that, for the latest generation of DDR4 systems that are protected by TRR, RowHammer is no longer an issue in practice. However, in reality, very little is…
▽ More
After a plethora of high-profile RowHammer attacks, CPU and DRAM vendors scrambled to deliver what was meant to be the definitive hardware solution against the RowHammer problem: Target Row Refresh (TRR). A common belief among practitioners is that, for the latest generation of DDR4 systems that are protected by TRR, RowHammer is no longer an issue in practice. However, in reality, very little is known about TRR. In this paper, we demystify the inner workings of TRR and debunk its security guarantees. We show that what is advertised as a single mitigation mechanism is actually a series of different solutions coalesced under the umbrella term TRR. We inspect and disclose, via a deep analysis, different existing TRR solutions and demonstrate that modern implementations operate entirely inside DRAM chips. Despite the difficulties of analyzing in-DRAM mitigations, we describe novel techniques for gaining insights into the operation of these mitigation mechanisms. These insights allow us to build TRRespass, a scalable black-box RowHammer fuzzer. TRRespass shows that even the latest generation DDR4 chips with in-DRAM TRR, immune to all known RowHammer attacks, are often still vulnerable to new TRR-aware variants of RowHammer that we develop. In particular, TRRespass finds that, on modern DDR4 modules, RowHammer is still possible when many aggressor rows are used (as many as 19 in some cases), with a method we generally refer to as Many-sided RowHammer. Overall, our analysis shows that 13 out of the 42 modules from all three major DRAM vendors are vulnerable to our TRR-aware RowHammer access patterns, and thus one can still mount existing state-of-the-art RowHammer attacks. In addition to DDR4, we also experiment with LPDDR4 chips and show that they are susceptible to RowHammer bit flips too. Our results provide concrete evidence that the pursuit of better RowHammer mitigations must continue.
△ Less
Submitted 3 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
-
Enter Sandbox: Android Sandbox Comparison
Authors:
Sebastian Neuner,
Victor van der Veen,
Martina Lindorfer,
Markus Huber,
Georg Merzdovnik,
Martin Mulazzani,
Edgar Weippl
Abstract:
Expecting the shipment of 1 billion Android devices in 2017, cyber criminals have naturally extended their vicious activities towards Google's mobile operating system. With an estimated number of 700 new Android applications released every day, keeping control over malware is an increasingly challenging task. In recent years, a vast number of static and dynamic code analysis platforms for analyzin…
▽ More
Expecting the shipment of 1 billion Android devices in 2017, cyber criminals have naturally extended their vicious activities towards Google's mobile operating system. With an estimated number of 700 new Android applications released every day, keeping control over malware is an increasingly challenging task. In recent years, a vast number of static and dynamic code analysis platforms for analyzing Android applications and making decision regarding their maliciousness have been introduced in academia and in the commercial world. These platforms differ heavily in terms of feature support and application properties being analyzed. In this paper, we give an overview of the state-of-the-art dynamic code analysis platforms for Android and evaluate their effectiveness with samples from known malware corpora as well as known Android bugs like Master Key. Our results indicate a low level of diversity in analysis platforms resulting from code reuse that leaves the evaluated systems vulnerable to evasion. Furthermore the Master Key bugs could be exploited by malware to hide malicious behavior from the sandboxes.
△ Less
Submitted 28 October, 2014;
originally announced October 2014.
